Biden administration proposes to compensate passengers for canceled/delayed flights
May 8, 2023, 9:43 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Programs: Silver Level: DL, Non-Elite: AS, UA, AA, WN
Posts: 745
Biden administration proposes to compensate passengers for canceled/delayed flights
Reuters Article on the Proposal
What do you all think? Is it time for the US to join the EU by introducing legislation similar to EU261? What are the pros/cons?
What do you all think? Is it time for the US to join the EU by introducing legislation similar to EU261? What are the pros/cons?
May 8, 2023, 9:57 am
#2
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 123
This appears to me to be political grandstanding in support of candidate Biden. Congress has not given the DoT the legal authority to mandate compensation, and a presidential pen does not make law no matter how much an administration thinks it can.
On the merits, any mandated compensation will be paid by passengers via increased fares. I have insured myself against the consequences of an occasional IRROPS, and would prefer not to pay increased fares to support a mandated compensation scheme.
I would rather see legislation authorizing the creation of a no-fly list for disruptive passengers than an EU261 type scheme.
On the merits, any mandated compensation will be paid by passengers via increased fares. I have insured myself against the consequences of an occasional IRROPS, and would prefer not to pay increased fares to support a mandated compensation scheme.
I would rather see legislation authorizing the creation of a no-fly list for disruptive passengers than an EU261 type scheme.
May 8, 2023, 10:57 am
#3
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
I welcome a US equivalent of EC 261/2004. These things can be done in the US via following administrative procedures already authorized by Congress and signed into law decades ago.
May 8, 2023, 11:05 am
#4
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
I'm indifferent. But, if forced to choose, I'd say no and agree with tsb3 on it just increasing the cost for all consumers, the law of large numbers thing. When it comes to this, I can self insure, so why buy insurance for it? I hate insurance by the way.
May 8, 2023, 5:11 pm
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Programs: Silver Level: DL, Non-Elite: AS, UA, AA, WN
Posts: 745
I still think it's important to incentivize airlines to avoid canceling flights. I just flew Frontier this weekend and since they don't interline, a cancelation meant a walk-up rate at a rival airline from me and no penalty at all for them, apart from the loss of revenue which they often issue in vouchers. Giving them more incentive to find substitute aircraft and such feels to me like the right move, even if it does raise fares slightly.
May 8, 2023, 8:05 pm
#6
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: Kettle Class
Posts: 796
If CNN/Reuters have it right, the DOT proposal only contemplates $100 in cash compensation for delays in excess of 3 hours, which would be a lot less generous than EC261 and the associated Right to Care enjoyed by European air consumers. I'm not really sure if this is going to impact airfares to a meaningful degree.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a...ion/index.html
[edit: out-of-date article]
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a...ion/index.html
[edit: out-of-date article]
Last edited by progapanda; May 8, 2023 at 8:28 pm
May 8, 2023, 8:14 pm
#7
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: DAL
Posts: 1,447
If CNN/Reuters have it right, the DOT proposal only contemplates $100 in cash compensation for delays in excess of 3 hours, which would be a lot less generous than EC261 and the associated Right to Care enjoyed by European air consumers. I'm not really sure if this is going to impact airfares to a meaningful degree.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a...ion/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/a...ion/index.html
May 8, 2023, 10:36 pm
#10
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,307
May 9, 2023, 3:26 am
#11
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: GLA
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 2,962
You have to remember that EC261/UK261 compensation payments are only due when the delay or cancellation is attributable to the airline - so weather, ATC strikes, etc. don't trigger compensation. The intention of compensation is, as above, to incentivise airlines not to just cancel underbooked services, for example, and to make suitable arrangements when there is a technical issue, rather than just abandoning pax.
The right to care - phone calls, refreshments, meals, accommodation etc. (depending on length of delay) kicks in regardless of who is to blame for the delay. This is the more controversial bit of the scheme for me.
The right to care - phone calls, refreshments, meals, accommodation etc. (depending on length of delay) kicks in regardless of who is to blame for the delay. This is the more controversial bit of the scheme for me.
May 9, 2023, 5:03 am
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Right to care and right to compensation aspects of EC 261/2004 are both fine by me. A US equivalent is overdue its welcome by me.
Each issue can be tackled during the same period without compromising time lines for the other issue. Also, resort fees are not under the purview of the US DOT.
Each issue can be tackled during the same period without compromising time lines for the other issue. Also, resort fees are not under the purview of the US DOT.
May 9, 2023, 6:12 am
#13
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: AA LT PLT; HH Diamond; AS 75K
Posts: 2,878
This appears to me to be political grandstanding in support of candidate Biden. Congress has not given the DoT the legal authority to mandate compensation, and a presidential pen does not make law no matter how much an administration thinks it can.
On the merits, any mandated compensation will be paid by passengers via increased fares. I have insured myself against the consequences of an occasional IRROPS, and would prefer not to pay increased fares to support a mandated compensation scheme.
I would rather see legislation authorizing the creation of a no-fly list for disruptive passengers than an EU261 type scheme.
On the merits, any mandated compensation will be paid by passengers via increased fares. I have insured myself against the consequences of an occasional IRROPS, and would prefer not to pay increased fares to support a mandated compensation scheme.
I would rather see legislation authorizing the creation of a no-fly list for disruptive passengers than an EU261 type scheme.
It is President Biden or did they nan civics as well as books?
Every scenario and industry has a company responsible and the argument you’ll be paying for it lacks recognition. I’ve got medical insurance but shouldn’t have to buy a policy that protects me from the doctor taking out the wrong kidney.
May 9, 2023, 6:33 am
#14
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: DL PM; IHG PlatAmb; Hilton Dia; Marriott Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 7,320
This appears to me to be political grandstanding in support of candidate Biden. Congress has not given the DoT the legal authority to mandate compensation, and a presidential pen does not make law no matter how much an administration thinks it can.
On the merits, any mandated compensation will be paid by passengers via increased fares. I have insured myself against the consequences of an occasional IRROPS, and would prefer not to pay increased fares to support a mandated compensation scheme.
I would rather see legislation authorizing the creation of a no-fly list for disruptive passengers than an EU261 type scheme.
On the merits, any mandated compensation will be paid by passengers via increased fares. I have insured myself against the consequences of an occasional IRROPS, and would prefer not to pay increased fares to support a mandated compensation scheme.
I would rather see legislation authorizing the creation of a no-fly list for disruptive passengers than an EU261 type scheme.
Yes, any customer friendly move increases costs to airlines that will be passed onto customers.... But that applies to honoring mistake fares, free bags, better alcohol in first class, more pilots, more customer service reps, and dozens of other things people on Ft regularly ask for.
May 9, 2023, 7:25 am
#15
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: DAL
Posts: 1,447
The major impact of the airline proposal will be the ultra low cost carriers with limited planes and limited maintenance facilities who rely on 3rd party service providers. The big carriers have maintenance faculties and repair crews around the country.